On Tuesday 13 July 2010 21:15:39, Roman Marynchak wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I use SBCL at work, but our product migrates on Windows 7 x64 and requires
> the appropriate 64-bit CL implementation (capable of using 4+ GB of memory,
> emitting AMD64 code and so on). So, I wonder how long it can take to port
> SBCL there?
>
> Actually, there are three specific questions:
>
> 2. What are the technical problems connected with this port?
As far as I know, the main difference between Win64 and Win32 is different
exception handling mechanism. In Win32, functions pushed and popped SEH
frames; in Win64 exception handling is table-based: each function is
associated with exception information table; it's documented in
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/7kcdt6fy%28v=VS.80%29.aspx). Win64
differs from other x86-64 OSes in calling convention.

Hello All,
I use SBCL at work, but our product migrates on Windows 7 x64 and requires
the appropriate 64-bit CL implementation (capable of using 4+ GB of memory,
emitting AMD64 code and so on). So, I wonder how long it can take to port
SBCL there?
Actually, there are three specific questions:
1. Is there any ongoing port to Win7 x64?
2. What are the technical problems connected with this port?
3. Who is also interested in this port?
My approximation is that it is from 0.5 to 2 man-years, depending on the
quality of the port (from 'just runs and passes all tests' to 'uses UMS and
other Windows-specific things to gain the maximum performance'). What are
the other opinions?
I do not say that I will do this port, but it is interesting to know the
current status of it.
Regards,
Roman

Hi all,
A while ago, I submitted a patch that allowed the user to pass an install
prefix to make.sh. It was rejected, and not without reason.
Here's a refined attempt, based on sbcl 1.40. First I split out the
general improvements to make.sh from (see 0001). Then I improved the
prefix support (see 0002).
Please consider these patches.
Thanks,
Daniel